MGMT promoter methylation is prognostic but not predictive for outcome to adjuvant PCV chemotherapy in anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors: a report from EORTC Brain Tumor Group Study 26951.

PURPOSE: O6-methylguanine-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation has been shown to predict survival of patients with glioblastomas if temozolomide is added to radiotherapy (RT). It is unknown if MGMT promoter methylation is also predictive to outcome to RT followed by adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy in patients with anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer study 26951, 368 patients with AOT were randomly assigned to either RT alone or to RT followed by adjuvant PCV. From 165 patients of this study, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was available for MGMT promoter methylation analysis. This was investigated with methylation specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. RESULTS: In 152 cases, an MGMT result was obtained, in 121 (80%) cases MGMT promoter methylation was observed. Methylation strongly correlated with combined loss of chromosome 1p and 19q loss (P = .00043). In multivariate analysis, MGMT promoter methylation, 1p/19q codeletion, tumor necrosis, and extent of resection were independent prognostic factors. The prognostic significance of MGMT promoter methylation was equally strong in the RT arm and the RT/PCV arm for both progression-free survival and overall survival. In tumors diagnosed at central pathology review as glioblastoma, no prognostic effect of MGMT promoter methylation was observed. CONCLUSION: In this study, on patients with AOT MGMT promoter methylation was of prognostic significance and did not have predictive significance for outcome to adjuvant PCV chemotherapy. The biologic effect of MGMT promoter methylation or pathogenetic features associated with MGMT promoter methylation may be different for AOT compared with glioblastoma.

Personalized care in neuro-oncology coming of age: why we need MGMT and 1p/19q testing for malignant glioma patients in clinical practice.

Histological subtyping and grading by malignancy are the cornerstones of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of the central nervous system. They shall provide clinicians with guidance as to the course of disease to be expected and the choices of treatment to be made. Nonetheless, patients with histologically identical tumors may have very different outcomes, notably in patients with astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas of WHO grades II and III. In gliomas of adulthood, 3 molecular markers have undergone extensive studies in recent years: 1p/19q chromosomal codeletion, O(6)-methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation, and mutations of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2. However, the assessment of these molecular markers has so far not been implemented in clinical routine because of the lack of therapeutic implications. In fact, these markers were considered to be prognostic irrespective of whether patients were receiving radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy, or both (1p/19q, IDH1/2), or of limited value because testing is too complex and no chemotherapy alternative to temozolomide was available (MGMT). In 2012, this situation has changed: long-term follow-up of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402 and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951 trials demonstrated an overall survival benefit from the addition to RT of chemotherapy with procarbazine/CCNU/vincristine confined to patients with anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors with (vs without) 1p/19q codeletion. Furthermore, in elderly glioblastoma patients, the NOA-08 and the Nordic trial of RT alone versus temozolomide alone demonstrated a profound impact of MGMT promoter methylation on outcome by therapy and thus established MGMT as a predictive biomarker in this patient population. These recent results call for the routine implementation of 1p/19q and MGMT testing at least in subpopulations of malignant glioma patients and represent an encouraging step toward the development of personalized therapeutic approaches in neuro-oncology.

MGMT testing-the challenges for biomarker-based glioma treatment.

Many patients with malignant gliomas do not respond to alkylating agent chemotherapy. Alkylator resistance of glioma cells is mainly mediated by the DNA repair enzyme O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT). Epigenetic silencing of the MGMT gene by promoter methylation in glioma cells compromises this DNA repair mechanism and increases chemosensitivity. MGMT promoter methylation is, therefore, a strong prognostic biomarker in paediatric and adult patients with glioblastoma treated with temozolomide. Notably, elderly patients (>65-70 years) with glioblastoma whose tumours lack MGMT promoter methylation derive minimal benefit from such chemotherapy. Thus, MGMT promoter methylation status has become a frequently requested laboratory test in neuro-oncology. This Review presents current data on the prognostic and predictive relevance of MGMT testing, discusses clinical trials that have used MGMT status to select participants, evaluates known issues concerning the molecular testing procedure, and addresses the necessity for molecular-context-dependent interpretation of MGMT test results. Whether MGMT promoter methylation testing should be offered to all individuals with glioblastoma, or only to elderly patients and those in clinical trials, is also discussed. Justifications for withholding alkylating agent chemotherapy in patients with MGMT-unmethylated glioblastomas outside clinical trials, and the potential role for MGMT testing in other gliomas, are also discussed.

Définition et prise en charge de l'échec d'une première injection de toxine botulique Botox(®) 200 U pour hyperactivité détrusorienne neurogène : résultats de l'enquête DETOX [Definition of botulinum toxin failure in neurogenic detrusor overactivity: Preliminary results of the DETOX survey].

OBJECTIVE: There is currently no guideline regarding the management of neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) refractory to intra-detrusor botulinum toxin injections. The primary objective of the present study was to find a consensus definition of failure of botulinum toxin intra-detrusor injections for NDO. The secondary objective was to report current trends in the managment of NDO refractory to botulinum toxin. METHODS: A survey was created, based on data drawn from current literature, and sent via e-mail to all the experts form the Group for research in neurourology in french language (GENULF) and from the comittee of neurourology of the French urological association (AFU). The experts who did not answer to the first e-mail were contacted again twice. Main results from the survey are presented and expressed as numbers and proportions. RESULTS: Out of the 42 experts contacted, 21 responded to the survey. Nineteen participants considered that the definition of failure should be a combination of clinical and urodynamics criteria. Among the urodynamics criteria, the persistence of a maximum detrusor pressure>40cm H2O was the most supported by the experts (18/21, 85%). According to the vast majority of participants (19/21, 90.5%), the impact of injections on urinary incontinence should be included in the definition of failure. Regarding the management, most experts considered that the first line treatment in case of failure of a first intra-detrusor injection of Botox(®) 200 U should be a repeat injection of Botox(®) at a higher dosage (300 U) (15/20, 75%), regardless of the presence or not of urodynamics risk factors of upper tract damage (16/20, 80%). CONCLUSION: This work has provided a first overview of the definition of failure of intra-detrusor injections of botulinum toxin in the management of NDO. For 90.5% of the experts involved, the definition of failure should be clinical and urodynamic and most participants (75%) considered that, in case of failure of a first injection of Botox(®) 200 U, repeat injection of Botox(®) 300 U should be the first line treatment. Level of proof 4.